|<<>>|71 of 582 Show listMobile Mode

Vote Hillary or we’re all gonna die! (i.e. Jill Stein hates your children.)

Published by marco on

As described in a recent article, Ocean of Misdirection (earthli News), now that the election is only weeks away, Democrats are coming out as increasingly fervent. Everybody’s piling on the hyperbole. Hillary Clinton is not just the choice to make, she is a world-changing, peace-bringing successor to one of the best presidents America has ever had. Democrats will continue to fix America. Long may they reign.[1]

 Ted Rall: August 31st, 2016While I’m almost certain that Republicans are doing the same thing, their news sources are too right-wing for me to regularly visit. With the mainstream media and many purportedly left-leaning commentators having pledged unquestioning support for Hillary, it’s their acquiescence to propaganda that seems more important to the outcome of the election. This type of supporter will use their influence to elect Hillary with a mandate and then melt into silence as she does none of the things that they supported her to do.

Barack Obama Lends his Voice

 Obama and Hillary 4-everFor example, the article Obama: “progress is on the ballot” by Jason Kottke—a normally more reserved commentator—practically gushes,

“[…] here’s Hillary Clinton’s latest campaign commercial. This is right up there with the best political ads I’ve seen.”

He goes on to cite Obama’s speech to the Congressional Black Caucus, where Obama concluded with,

“[…] our progress is on the ballot. Tolerance is on the ballot. Democracy is on the ballot. Justice is on the ballot. Good schools are on the ballot. Ending mass incarceration, that’s on the ballot right now.”

This is pure propaganda. I guarantee that a Hillary administration will do as little about reducing mass incarceration as an Obama administration did. Prison populations continue to rise inexorably, overcrowding is rampant. Just because Obama granted a few clemencies at the end of his presidency—as all presidents do—doesn’t suddenly make him a hero of the people, tearing down the walls of injustice.

Likewise, there is no clear idea of how “good schools” will ever be seen in America again. Obama’s administration has seen the flowering of the charter-school system—a market-based solution to public schools. A Clinton administration will do as little for those who can’t afford private school as Obama’s did.

Robert Reich chimes in

 TedRall: October 11th, 2016Another fervent supporter lends his voice in the article Why All Progressives Must Vote For Hillary by Robert Reich. His calls for electing Hillary have become increasingly strident, militant and unforgiving of non-adherents.

Reich got the marching orders from the Clinton campaign to shore up Democratic support by equating voting for a third party as treason. Below, we’ll see how Michelle Obama does the same. These people are not at all interested in who people actually want for president; they want to bully you into voting for their candidate. This is ugly and offensive.

Here’s Reich:

“But anything disgruntled Democrats may do that increases the odds of a Trump presidency – say, making a “protest” vote for a third-party candidate, or not voting at all – doesn’t just penalize the Democratic Party. It also jeopardizes our future, and that of our children and their children.”

He doesn’t just play the “won’t someone please think of the children” card, he jams it into your eye. This line of reasoning is also pure propaganda, tweaking people’s heartstrings about a vaguely defined group of American children while simultaneously ignoring children in the rest of the world.

That applies not only to those who’ve already been subjected to Hillary’s seemingly insatiable policy of attacking other countries as Secretary of State, but also those who almost certainly will be killed under a hawkish Clinton administration. Americans don’t need to care about those kids. They should instead think of the little ones in the States, for whom a Jill Stein presidency would be an unmitigated disaster, right?

Michael Moore and the New Yorker

I honestly can’t tell what the article What Michael Moore understands about Hillary Clinton by Richard Brody (New Yorker) is trying to say. I think it approves of Michael Moore’s new 1-hour–long campaign ad for Hillary Clinton portraying her as the second coming. But goddamn if it’s not even harder than usual to decipher the New Yorker’s prose. For instance,

“Moore—a well-known and outspoken supporter of Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary campaign—has done something different, better, and even majestic. He has made a film that, at its frequent best, raises his own celebrity to a political object and transforms that celebrity into a mode of combative yet deeply empathetic practical politics, even turns it into a political weapon of the sort that’s seemingly ready-made to combat Trump, whose candidacy, after all, is itself purely a product of the celebrity industry.”

 Ted Rall: June 8th, 2016Did that article even get an editor? Given that the author cheers Moore’s “[…] dreams of [Clinton’s] flurry of executive orders (a conservative’s nightmare); he envisions that she’ll replace old enemies (“Iran and North Korea”) with new ones (“Monsanto and Wells Fargo”)” then concludes that the “argument has been made and won”, it’s clear that both Brody and Moore are unquestioningly in the tank for Clinton.

Moore in particular has forgiven and forgotten all of her campaign’s collusion with the DNC against his former main man Bernie in his single-minded drive to avoid Trump. This is hardly surprising, as Moore’s history of supported candidates over the years is far from progressive and hasn’t shown much principle. Anyone remember his support of General Wesley Clark, who was in charge of bombing the hell out of the former Yugoslavia in the late 90s?

Michelle Obama Lends her Voice

There has been a recent hue and cry for Michelle Obama for president (even here in Switzerland). This is probably because of a recent speech that she gave in support of Hillary Clinton. The hope of the Clinton administration is that a support of Michelle’s unassailable awesomeness[2] can be transferred to Clinton.

As with so much else, it seems to be working. A friend—who works for the State Department—wrote on Facebook,

“Years from now, this speech will stand out as one of the most important of our lifetime I think. Take 26 minutes out of your life and watch it, or you’ll be missing an important moment. For any of you with children, her words starting at 18:10 are monumental.”

Not living in a miasma of propaganda, I was of course dubious, but wanted to give it a fair shot. I wasn’t interested in watching or listening to the speech, but I dug up the Transcript: First Lady Michelle Obama’s speech in Manchester, New Hampshire by Michelle Obama (WhatTheFolly).

I couldn’t figure out which part was at 18:10, so I imagine the video becomes emotionally sweeping at 18:10 in a way not matched by the actual words. What is clear from the transcript is that she’s a master manipulator, like her husband.

This is a campaign speech. Michelle’s stumping for Hillary. Democrats see that they can finally use Trump’s awfulness to put him out of commission. Hillary’s campaign smells blood in the water and they’re going for the jugular with this speech.

And people are biting. Commentators are gushing “speech of the century”—in the same way that they did for her stupid speech at the DNC—because she’s a woman and people don’t hate her yet. Hillary can’t plausibly give this speech, but Michelle Obama still can.

The Women and the Children

Since I’m not in the bubble, I read it and heard just another stump speech, full of hyperbole and invective aimed at the other side. A lot of what Trump says and does is terrible, but the latest revelation seems to be a bigger lever—for whatever reason.

Just to put this into perspective, though, 12 years ago, Trump discussed women in disgusting ways. We can have a conversation about whether this is historically non-presidential another time (I’m looking at you, Kennedy and Clinton). But Michelle Obama is married to a man who has sent out drones almost every day of his eight-year presidency and—according to the CIA—these drones killed innocents killed more often than not. Among those innocents were women and children.

But Michelle doesn’t talk about those women and children because it would make her husband look bad and talking about those people’s deaths doesn’t help Hillary’s campaign. Talking about those deaths—actual deaths, not just threats of harm or personal slights—would probably hurt Hillary’s chances.

The kids who matter are instead the precious innocents in America who might have overheard Trump’s bad words about women. In fact, she feels positively “sick” about the bad words spoken about women by that demon.

Actual dead women don’t matter because they’re faceless, nameless and of the wrong nationality. Also, her husband killed them. Instead, she turns to look at his Nobel Peace Prize on the mantel and contemplates how to further Hillary’s campaign—on how to get yet another warmonger into the highest office in the land.

 Ted Rall: June 30th, 2016We have a president who runs a world-girdling military that kills hundreds, if not thousands, every day. This is all extrajudicial and carried out on the authority of force. All too often, we just don’t care to target better, erring on the side of our own safety rather than on the side of people who don’t matter one whit.

The next president will continue this tradition, perhaps expanding it. Hillary helped Obama steer Libya off of a cliff with a long, sustained NATO bombing campaign. Thousands and thousands died. But deaths in war don’t matter to us. They are un-people. What matters, what is horrifying, would be if the next president didn’t respect women.

Hillary respects women, right? She’s a woman, so how could she not? Does it matter that her policies have been terrible for women, blacks and black women, most of all? Not really.

From the Mouths of Babes

And then there’s the bullshit stories about six-year–old boys who spout some form of wisdom. Didn’t Michelle’s husband also have the pleasure recently of citing a six-year–old boy who was wise beyond his years? Such a coincidence. If you want to peddle pap to fools, then tell them that a child said it and it lends the statement incredible import.

Whereas these words directly from Michelle might sound hackneyed and naive, when cited as the words of a child whose view of the world is being shattered by our incredible barbarity, they gain momentous meaning. It’s an old trick. People will fall for it in droves. But remember that when you sympathize with a child’s viewpoint, when you shed every vestige of cynicism, when you consider all those who accept barbarity in the world as monsters themselves who don’t care about making the world a better place, the world doesn’t magically change with you. You’ve just adopted a worldview that is not compatible with reality.

As usual in the U.S. of A: killing people is OK; demeaning them is “intolerable”. Incredible violence is entirely acceptable, but a nip slip is the worst thing that could ever happen.

The war on women

People’s capacity for listening to this kind of pap—and being deeply affected by it—seems limitless. Michelle Obama empathizes with working women, with women walking in the street, being ogled. But how would she know? Really? She’s lived in a bubble for most of her adult life—even more so over the last eight years. She is, for all intents and purposes, royalty, just like Hillary and Trump. They’re all the 1%.

And Michelle Obama will talk all day about the plight of women, but not a single word about how mistreated blacks are in this country. Why? Because the woman “angle” hits Trump harder than the “black” angle.

Therefore, not a word is lost in this speech about the war on minorities. Is this because her husband’s administration issued a 100% backing of the police forces in America? Barack Obama also has nothing to say about blacks being gunned down by police at unprecedented rates.

Neither of them are going to allow caring about an issue like that get in the way of their careers or Hillary’s. You’ve got to have your priorities. Barack Obama has spent the last several weeks smoothing his path to working in venture capital in Silicon Valley after his presidency, if you needed to know where his priorities lie.

Michelle limns Saint Hillary

The latter 40% of the speech was Michelle literally listing Hillary’s campaign points. She wraps up with a good five minutes of even-more-standard fare, begging the electorate to get out the vote for Hillary.

For example,

“Well, during her four years as Secretary of State alone, Hillary has faced her share of challenges. She’s traveled to 112 countries, negotiated a ceasefire, a peace agreement, a release of dissidents. She spent 11 hours testifying before a congressional committee.”

11 whole hours? How is Hillary even still alive after that? So strong.

Again, citing Michelle,

“We know that when things get tough, Hillary doesn’t complain. She doesn’t blame others. She doesn’t abandon ship for something easier. No, Hillary Clinton has never quit on anything in her life.

“So in Hillary, we have a candidate who has dedicated her life to public service, someone who has waited her turn and helped out while waiting.”

Michelle’s point seems to be that people should vote for Hillary just for being brave enough to run for president, for not “quitting”. Plus, also, it’s “her turn”. There’s a line of succession to think of here. Presumably, Michelle will be next after Hillary’s eight years.

Michelle continues,

“She is an outstanding mother. She has raised a phenomenal young woman. She is a loving, loyal wife. She’s a devoted daughter, who cared for her mother until her final days. And if any of us had raised a daughter like Hillary Clinton, we would be so proud. We would be proud.”

She lays it on pretty thick though. Is Hillary running for Pope? If you’re not in the bubble, this is laughable, but if you’re under the waves, this kind of stuff hits you right in the feels.

Trump: the unnamed evil

Trump goes unnamed in the speech, but he’s the star of the show.

The First Lady hits the “won’t anyone please think of the children?” button pretty hard. As if no-one else’s suffering matters. We should only do the right thing when the feelings of American children are at stake, when the feelings of our own children are at stake. When their little feelings are threatened.

Aw, hell, when Trump is basically threatening with his every move and word to find, rape and kill all of your children. Personally. With gusto. That’s what’s at stake here: mass child-rape if Trump is elected.

Michelle calls out “vicious language”—without naming Trump—smoothly blending talking about “When you’re a celebrity, they let you do anything” with actually committing rape, being a predator, a convicted criminal.

Trump’s statement is almost 100% true, echoed by Bill Clinton many years ago. It’s also quite relevant to Michelle’s speech.

For example, when you’re a celebrity like Michelle, they let you give a speech that stumps for a candidate with more than enough blood on her hands, ignores a husband who has even more, all to focus on the problem of a man who is disrespectful to women.

So Michelle’s celebrity allows her to get away with that offensive act, for which she is lauded by every brainwashed goof in the land, who will start to call for her to run for Senate or President or to dream gooey-eyed about Michelle getting her own Peace Prize who-knows-maybe-she-could-just-have-Malala’s-we’ve-all-forgotten-about-her.

One woman to rule them all

Michelle wasn’t satisfied with hacking at Trump, though. To shore up Hillary, Michelle went after another woman: Jill Stein.

“And if you vote for someone other than Hillary, or if you don’t vote at all, then you are helping to elect her opponent.”

Don’t vote for that vote-vampire. Stein is literally trying to get a child-rapist elected for president. She clearly hates children.[3]

So St. Michelle’s support of women extends to just one very specific woman. But that should come as no surprise by now.

Continue these thoughts with The left’s answer: blame everything on the Russians.

[1] One would think that one couldn’t possibly miss the sarcasm here, but there are readers who are a bit weak in that area.
[2] See above footnote.
[3] You seriously can’t tell I’m being sarcastic?